Why no major Y seat developments?

[moa999]

787 9-across seats are definitely not wide on any airline.

I think Scoot is 31" pitch.
Obviously though the widebodies feel bigger internally

 

[Franky]

I believe the Scoot seat has at least 1 more inch of seat pitch and is also wider compared to the 737 seat of QF.

Adding to all of the above, Scoot is also a half hour shorter flight, and half the price.

 

[mannej]

787 9-across seats are definitely not wide on any airline.

I think Scoot is 31" pitch.
Obviously though the widebodies feel bigger internally

Believe it or not, the seat width on the Scoot 789 is advertised as 18 inches, so it is wider than the comparable seat width figure on the QF 737.

 

[Awesom Andy]

Believe it or not, the seat width on the Scoot 789 is advertised as 18 inches, so it is wider than the comparable seat width figure on the QF 737.

If you're looking for a cheap budget flight, Scoot would be the winner as other LCCs use A320s. If you're looking at legacy airlines, SQ uses widebodies as well. I'm not sure how or why QF is popular on this route with a 737, but it seems to be working out for them somehow.

 

[Melburnian1]

...I'm not sure how or why QF is popular on this route with a 737, but it seems to be working out for them somehow.

As with most airlines, QF doesn't usually break down its routes into 'profitable', 'covering costs' and 'unprofitable.' The exception is that AJ has commented a couple of times that the Oz - LHR via DXB routes are unprofitable, although even there clearly the MEL route would be more unprofitable than the SYD one as the latter allegedly has higher occupancy (and presumably yield) in the premium classes.

Therefore it's unclear how you know PER - SIN - PER is 'working well' for QF. If I can avoid it, I don't want to travel internationally on a narrowbody.

 

[Awesom Andy]

As with most airlines, QF doesn't usually break down its routes into 'profitable', 'covering costs' and 'unprofitable.' The exception is that AJ has commented a couple of times that the Oz - LHR via DXB routes are unprofitable, although even there clearly the MEL route would be more unprofitable than the SYD one as the latter allegedly has higher occupancy (and presumably yield) in the premium classes.

Therefore it's unclear how you know PER - SIN - PER is 'working well' for QF. If I can avoid it, I don't want to travel internationally on a narrowbody.

It seems that way to me, as they haven't cancelled it, and occasionally added frequencies as well. Anyway, that's for another thread...

Designs in narrow bodies (Y or others) are always going to be limited. The fuselages have remained the same size for the past decades, and with only 1 aisle, there are very few variations possible.

 

[Flying Fox]

As with most airlines, QF doesn't usually break down its routes into 'profitable', 'covering costs' and 'unprofitable.' The exception is that AJ has commented a couple of times that the Oz - LHR via DXB routes are unprofitable, although even there clearly the MEL route would be more unprofitable than the SYD one as the latter allegedly has higher occupancy (and presumably yield) in the premium classes.

AJ really stated that OZ - DXB - LHR is unprofitable???

Then why keep flying it if every flight is losing money? This isn't a smart way to run a company!

 

[Franky]

It seems that way to me, as they haven't cancelled it, and occasionally added frequencies as well. Anyway, that's for another thread...

Designs in narrow bodies (Y or others) are always going to be limited. The fuselages have remained the same size for the past decades, and with only 1 aisle, there are very few variations possible.

We flew last week to Jakarta via Singapore, with the QF737 (with winglets!) to Singapore, followed by Jetstar Asia's 737 (winglets not mentioned). I'm only 5'10", and the pocket on the QF flight was just rubbing my knees for the 5.5 hours of the flight. The Jetstar flight on entry looked like a bus with wings, but the pocket on their aircraft seemed to have almost two inches extra in front of my knees. Maybe not so much stuff loaded in it, but such a small amount made some difference.

 

[Awesom Andy]

We flew last week to Jakarta via Singapore, with the QF737 (with winglets!) to Singapore, followed by Jetstar Asia's 737 (winglets not mentioned). I'm only 5'10", and the pocket on the QF flight was just rubbing my knees for the 5.5 hours of the flight. The Jetstar flight on entry looked like a bus with wings, but the pocket on their aircraft seemed to have almost two inches extra in front of my knees. Maybe not so much stuff loaded in it, but such a small amount made some difference.

Some of the Jetstar A320's have the pocket moved up to behind the headrest, further increasing the knee room. It's not a bad idea, since they do not have an IFE system.

 

[AIRwin]

We flew last week to Jakarta via Singapore, with the QF737 (with winglets!) to Singapore, followed by Jetstar Asia's 737 (winglets not mentioned).

JQ and 3K operate A320s not B737s

 

[seanpodge]

Not really sure how much "innovation" one can expect in Y while keeping ticket costs reasonable. Last real "game changer" for me was personal IFE.

The only thing I can think of that would be a real change (compared to adding a few millimeters of knee room by moving the magazines) is if one of those bunk bed designs ever became reality.

 

[Awesom Andy]

Not really sure how much "innovation" one can expect in Y while keeping ticket costs reasonable. Last real "game changer" for me was personal IFE.

If anything, IFE seems to be starting to go the other way these days.

 

[TomVexille]

If anything, IFE seems to be starting to go the other way these days.

Yes, BYOD with streaming content seems to be the trend.

 

[moa999]

Not really sure how much "innovation" one can expect in Y while keeping ticket costs reasonable. Last real "game changer" for me was personal IFE.
.

And you may not like the look of the future - all about weight savings

http://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/mirus-super-thin-airplane-seats

 

[Franky]

JQ and 3K operate A320s not B737s

You are right of course..

 

[Flying Fox]

And you may not like the look of the future - all about weight savings

These Super-thin Airplane Seats Could Make Flying Economy Even Worse | Travel + Leisure

Super thin seats don't worry me so long as they are still comfortable.

Those arm rest on the other hand are a worry. They look super short and only suitable for a T-Rex!

People with standard length arms need not apply!

 

[seanpodge]

If anything, IFE seems to be starting to go the other way these days.

Pretty much. It's been superseeded now. I pretty much just use my iThing now. Even if an airline puts in the latest and greatest IFE, it'll most likely be out of date in a few years, making it harder to justify even before we get to the weight issue.

Really, as long as I could stream the flight map onto my phone/tablet and there was free power (looking at you, TZ!), I probably wouldn't use IFE much at all.

And you may not like the look of the future - all about weight savings

These Super-thin Airplane Seats Could Make Flying Economy Even Worse | Travel + Leisure

Of course. Could nearly get away with that on a short range turbo prop flight, but after that......:shock:

 

[Franky]

You are right of course..

And I should have stressed again that I still had more leg space on the LCC than on the QF flight.

 

[Quickstatus]

Here you go - some Y seat development.
1/3 the usual weight which reduces fuel consumption and benefits planet earth (and polar bears) and superthin to enable more passengers to fly for less.

Home » Mirus Aircraft Seating



edit moa999 beat me to it


.....

The other development is that BA is going 29 in pitch on the narrow aisle flights
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/n...llow-less-legroom-than-ryanair-on-short-haul/